Up until now, with few exceptions, most compound archery bow advances have been layered as refinements of the generalized topology given in Holles Wilber Allen's 1969 “Archery Bow With Draw Force Multiplying Attachments” patent (U.S. Pat. No. 3,486,495), with Arthur J. Frydenlund's 1976 “Compound Bow” (U.S. Pat. No. 3,967,609), being a notable departure at the time, followed closely with a return of focus to the generalized topology of H. W. Allen's work found in Donald S. Kudlacek's 1977 “Compound Archery Bow with Eccentric Cam Elements” patent, (U.S. Pat. No. 4,060,066)
Or basically, two limbs, (or “bow arms”) affixed to a riser, with rotating members, (read Bowstring Wheels or eccentrics), affixed to axles at opposite limb ends, each limb receiving negative feedback from the opposite rotating member. Most successful production compound bows have metal clubs on the ends of the limbs.
Of the notable exceptions that have graced mainstream production, few inboard riser mounted eccentric topologies have stood the test of time, as the efficiency of the aforementioned topologies have not been surpassed by an inboard topology. Neither by trading the limb tip mass for the velocity of greater limb travel, nor by lighter limb tip idler wheels and inboard eccentrics, there failing to keep pace by a composite of moving mass and friction found in an excess of moving parts.
The Floating Limb Compound topology, (FLC), is a radical departure, yet clear and concise to pure function, and applicable to competitive mainstream production. Neither inboard nor outboard, this topology possesses potential to surpass the efficiency of all previous vertical hand held compounds and crossbows.
Given the same energy storage, a more efficient bow may be drawn at a lighter weight than a less efficient bow of the same performance, or outperform that same bow of equivalent energy storage. With the more efficient mechanism left to resolve lesser strain, mass may be engineered out of the bow's components, potentially making the bow even more efficient, or may be engineered to shoot a lighter arrow with an equivalent stress proportion resolved by the mechanism. A lighter arrow, receiving equivalent energy, will be faster and have a flatter trajectory, thereby reducing ranging errors and wind drift, or ill anticipation of game.
To say speed is the name of the game in archery is a bit of a misnomer brought about by the IBO spec: 30″ AMO draw, 70# peak draw weight, 350 grain weight arrow. As you can see, the constrictions of the specification gives IBO speed as simply “The Product Of”=(Energy Stored×Efficiency). Nevertheless, if an archer purchases a bow by the 1130 speed alone, they certainly will not complain about the speed; but will likely complain about the harshness of the bows draw, lent by its radical energy storage curve, and/or the noise and shock emitted by the bow.
Clearly, efficiency is the truer goal of the archery-engineering professional.